Homology: Homeostatic Property Cluster Kinds in Systematics and Evolution
- 320 Downloads
Taxa and homologues can in our view be construed both as kinds and as individuals. However, the conceptualization of taxa as natural kinds in the sense of homeostatic property cluster kinds has been criticized by some systematists, as it seems that even such kinds cannot evolve due to their being homeostatic. We reply by arguing that the treatment of transformational and taxic homologies, respectively, as dynamic and static aspects of the same homeostatic property cluster kind represents a good perspective for supporting the conceptualization of taxa as kinds. The focus on a phenomenon of homology based on causal processes (e.g., connectivity, activity-function, genetics, inheritance, and modularity) and implying relationship with modification yields a notion of natural kinds conforming to the phylogenetic-evolutionary framework. Nevertheless, homeostatic property cluster kinds in taxonomic and evolutionary practice must be rooted in the primacy of epistemological classification (homology as observational properties) over metaphysical generalization (series of transformation and common ancestry as unobservational processes). The perspective of individuating characters exclusively by historical-transformational independence instead of their developmental, structural, and functional independence fails to yield a sufficient practical interplay between theory and observation. Purely ontological and ostensional perspectives in evolution and phylogeny (e.g., an ideographic character concept and PhyloCode’s ‘individualism’ of clades) may be pragmatically contested in the case of urgent issues in biodiversity research, conservation, and systematics.
KeywordsCharacters Individuals Monophyly Natural kinds Phylogeny Similarity Taxonomy Transformational and taxic homology
- Assis, L. C. S. (in preparation). Coherence, correspondence, and the renaissance of morphology in phylogenetic systematics.Google Scholar
- Boyd, R. (1999). Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In R. A. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays (pp. 141–185). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Brigandt, I. (2009). Natural kinds in evolution and systematics: Metaphysical and epistemological considerations. Acta Biotheoretica. doi:10.1007/s10441-008-9056-7.
- Brower, A. V. Z., & Schawaroch, V. (1996). Three steps of homology assessment. Cladistics, 12(3), 265–272.Google Scholar
- Cantino, P. D., & de Queiroz, K. (2007). PhyloCode. International code of phylogenetic nomenclature, version 4a. Retrieved from http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/.
- Dupré, J. (1999). On the impossibility of a monistic account of species. In R. A. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays (pp. 3–22). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Grant, T., Frost, D. R., Caldwell, J. P., Gagliardo, R., Haddad, C. F. B., Kok, J. R., et al. (2006). Phylogenetic systematics of dart-poison frogs and their relatives (Anura: Athesphatanura: Dendrobatidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 299(1), 1–262. doi:10.1206/0003-0090(2006)299[1:PSODFA]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hendrikse, J. L., Parsons, T. E., & Hallgrimsson, B. (2007). Evolvability as the proper focus of evolutionary developmental biology. Evolution & Development, 9(4), 393–401.Google Scholar
- Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic systematics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
- Kluge, A. G. (2003). On the deduction of species relationships: A précis. Cladistics, 19(3), 233–239.Google Scholar
- LaPorte, J. (2004). Natural kinds and conceptual change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Nelson, G. (1989b). Species and taxa: Systematics and evolution. In D. Otte & J. A. Endler (Eds.), Speciation and its consequences (pp. 60–81). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
- Nelson, G. (1994). Homology and systematics. In B. K. Hall (Ed.), Homology: The hierarchical basis of comparative biology (pp. 101–149). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Patterson, C. (1982). Morphological characters and homology. In K. A. Joysey & A. E. Friday (Eds.), Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction (pp. 21–74). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Rieppel, O. C. (1988). Fundamentals of comparative biology. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser Verlag.Google Scholar
- Schlosser, G., & Wagner, G. P. (Eds.). (2004). Modularity in development and evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Wagner, G. P. (1996). Homologues, natural kinds, and the evolution of modularity. American Zoologist, 36(1), 36–43.Google Scholar
- Wheeler, Q. D., & Meier, R. (Eds.). (2000). Species concepts and phylogenetic theory: A debate. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Wilson, R. A., Barker, M. A., & Brigandt, I. (in press). When traditional essentialism fails: Biological natural kinds. Philosophical Topics, 35(1/2).Google Scholar